N.Y. Appeals Court Rebuffs Lower Court's School Aid Ruling

A state appeals court in New York has reversed a landmark school
finance decision that had ordered lawmakers to overhaul the state's
school funding system.

A panel of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in Manhattan
ruled 4-1 on June 25 that a trial judge had overreached in his January
2001 ruling that New York's system for financing schools denied
students in the 1.1 million- student New York City schools "a sound,
basic education."

The ultimate outcome of the case will have implications not only for
the city's schools but also for school systems across the state because
it will help shape the direction of New York's school funding
priorities.

After the trial judge ruled that the school finance system was
unconstitutional, some school leaders in New York estimated it could
take another $3 billion annually—an amount roughly equal to the
state's record aid increase to schools over the past few years—to
satisfy the requirements of the ruling.

In the earlier ruling, Justice Leland DeGrasse of the New York
Supreme Court, a trial-level court, wrote that the city's schools were
plagued by "chronic defunding over the last 20 years," and that
students should have access to an education that prepares them for more
than simply low-wage jobs.

Students, he added, should be able to function as "civic
participants" who can understand concepts such as DNA testing and state
ballot initiatives. ("N.Y.
System of State Aid Thrown Out," Jan. 17, 2001.)

But writing for the majority in the appellate court's decision last
month, Justice Alfred D. Lerner said that while the state must provide
a "minimally adequate educational opportunity" for students, Justice
DeGrasse had used an "improper standard" in reaching his findings.

The state is not required, Justice Lerner wrote, "to guarantee some
higher, largely unspecified level of education, as laudable as that
goal might be." He went on to write that high school dropouts could
still become productive citizens, and that "society needs workers in
all levels of jobs, the majority of which may be very low-level."

The majority also cited the state's argument that only an 8th grade
education was needed to understand basic jury instructions, and that
reading a newspaper or understanding political messages in campaigns
did not require the skill level of a high school graduate.

Moreover, the appellate court ruled, the plaintiffs in the
case—a coalition of New York City parents and advocacy groups
represented by the Campaign for Fiscal Equity—had "failed to
prove that deficiencies in the city's school system are caused by the
state's funding system."

In overturning last year's ruling, the majority of appellate-court
justices found that the poor socioeconomic backgrounds of many city
students, and the mismanagement of resources by school administrators,
were more likely than the state's school aid system to adversely affect
students' opportunities.

"Although there was evidence that some schools have no science
laboratories, music rooms, or gymnasia," Justice Lerner wrote, "there
was no proof that these conditions are so pervasive as to constitute a
systemwide failure, much less one that was caused by the school
financing system, or one that can be cured only by a reformation of
that system."

'Temporary Setback'

Michael A. Rebell, the executive director of the New York City-based
Campaign for Fiscal Equity, described much of the majority opinion as
"callous."

"We are outraged on behalf of hundreds of thousands of New York
state students who struggle in overcrowded classrooms with underpaid
teachers and empty libraries," Mr. Rebell said in a statement.

Later, in a conference call with reporters, he added: "It's a very
limited notion to say the minimum is good enough for these students and
we don't have to aim higher."

He called the decision a "temporary setback" and vowed to appeal the
decision to the New York Court of Appeals, which is the state's highest
court.

Mr. Rebell noted that his coalition of parents and advocacy groups
had initially lost its case in 1995, but won last year after the state
Court of Appeals recognized the groups' arguments that the state
constitution implied the right to a "sound basic education" and federal
civil rights laws bar states from spending money in a way that has a
discriminatory impact.

The eight-month trial generated volumes of testimony from education
experts..

Mr. Rebell praised the dissenting opinion in the June ruling, in
which Justice David B. Saxe wrote that the trial court's fundamental
conclusions "can only be reversed by ignoring either much of the
evidence or the actual circumstances of the city's student
population."

But Alfred Lindseth, a senior partner in the New York firm of
Sutherland Asbill & Brennan who represented the state in the trial,
said the court clearly recognized that lack of money isn't the
fundamental problem with the city's schools..

"The total focus is always on more money," Mr. Lindseth said. "No
one was paying attention to the root of the problem, which is how local
districts run the schools. They ought to be more focused on how the
money is spent."

Michael McKeon, a spokesman for Gov. George E. Pataki, said in a
statement that since taking office in 1995, the Republican governor has
provided a total increase of $2.1 billion in state aid to the New York
City schools over that period.

"Governor Pataki has made it clear," he said, "that we will continue
to invest in education and continue to fight for more reforms
regardless of the outcome of this case, because it is the right thing
to do for our children."

Vol. 21, Issue 42, Page 16

Published in Print: July 10, 2002, as N.Y. Appeals Court Rebuffs Lower Court's School Aid Ruling

Notice: We recently upgraded our comments. (Learn more here.) If you are logged in as a subscriber or registered user and already have a Display Name on edweek.org, you can post comments. If you do not already have a Display Name, please create one here.

Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.